* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] mq_timedreceive:5-2: reduce the timeout to be compared
2012-04-11 8:27 ` [LTP] [PATCH] mq_timedreceive:5-2: reduce the timeout to be compared Kang Kai
@ 2012-04-11 8:34 ` Wanlong Gao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wanlong Gao @ 2012-04-11 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kang Kai; +Cc: ltp-list
On 04/11/2012 04:27 PM, Kang Kai wrote:
> On 2012年04月11日 15:41, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> On 04/10/2012 12:02 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>>
>>> We use (newtime-oldtime) to compare with the TIMEOUT here,
>>> but the diff-time we get here is not accurate, the restrict
>>> comparing is not reasonable.
>>
>> Anyone can help reviewing or testing?
>
> Test Yocto Linux 1.2 on arch x86-64 ppc and mips PASS.
Thanks a bunch for testing! Any other comments or objections ?
Wanlong Gao
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Wanlong Gao
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/5-2.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/5-2.c b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/5-2.c
>>> index e81d8d5..93421c0 100644
>>> --- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/5-2.c
>>> +++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/5-2.c
>>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>>>
>>> #define NAMESIZE 50
>>> #define BUFFER 40
>>> -#define TIMEOUT 3
>>> +#define TIMEOUT 2
>>>
>>> int blocking;
>>> void exit_handler(int signo)
>>> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ int main()
>>> sigemptyset(&act.sa_mask);
>>> sigaction(SIGABRT,&act, 0);
>>>
>>> - ts.tv_sec = time(NULL) + TIMEOUT;
>>> + ts.tv_sec = time(NULL) + TIMEOUT + 1;
>>> ts.tv_nsec = 0;
>>> oldtime = time(NULL);
>>> mq_timedreceive(mqdes, msgrv, BUFFER, NULL,&ts);
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
>> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
>> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltp-list mailing list
>> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
> monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
> resolution app monitoring today. Free.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
resolution app monitoring today. Free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread